Quote from: Nexus;971403That's all I've ever heard about it whenever its been described. "The Funnel" is something you run handfuls of characters through to see if you get to play them. I've never heard that it as premise or "reality" as far the rest of the game goes. Does it?  



Ok. I didn't say it was bad, I said I wouldn't enjoy it. Its an old school mindset that its the players ability not the character's that matter. That's fine just not my cuppa.



Fuck you. Seriously fuck you. You're ridiculous assumption that anyone that doesn't play like you play is somehow "not role playing" or some bullshit is annoying as Hell. Like I said, as far as I know the whole "funnel" thing is OOC, a meta construct to test the player and isn't actually a part of anything,. I've tried to be even hand and keep it a matter of taste but fuck that noise now. If you'd actually describe where I had some misconceptions and heard wrong intead of coming on with your usual condescending bullshit because you're too damn insecure and thin skinned to tolerate that somebody, some where might not like what you like this might have been a productive conversation.

I'm the sensitive, thin-skinned one? Sheesh.

Look, the funnel is just another adventure.  Period. It's set in the same world and setting as everything that comes after.  It's no different than say playing the Prelude in Vampire:The Masquerade.  It's playing the Backstory instead of writing it.  That's it.

There is no OOC meta-construct, funhouse aspect, whatever., inherent to the rules.  I think people do funnels at cons because they find them fun, but that just means it's  "0-level DCC adventure" instead of a "3rd-4th Level DCC adventure".

Because it's a specific type of adventure, people might be running them by themselves, and doing nothing but funnels, but that's not the default assumption as laid out in the book.

Quote from: Nexus;971408Actually, I don't like the majority of what you guys call "storygames" they don't provide the experience I like and feel too "meta" for my tastes Not to mention the voice they're written in often pretentious as Hell. But I guess we all have unfounded assumptions, huh? My favorite rpgs is Champions/Hero System. Last time I heard that isn't a "hippy storygame". I am not old school because I do not enjoy the old school mindset. I know this due to having a lousy time in old school games and finding the description of them unappealing. I'm pretty sure I actually experienced all that so... no, the reason I am not Old School is I have tried Old School and did not like it.

Hey to Ream, that's a badge of honor.  Yeah I know you're not a dyed in the wool forgie, but you brought up Slasher Flick, you gotta own at least a little Storygameyness.  What I meant was, you just like a little more OOC control in your RPG.

That not badwrongfun or objectively superior or inferior, but to have those meaningful conversations, you need to define terms.  I'm perfectly happy roleplaying as close to 100% in-character as possible.  You give me OOC mechanics, I don't like them, they bother me.  You like a little bit of OOC input, expressed primarily through chargen, which I expect is why the most detailed, pointbuy system there is, is your favorite.  It gives you near total control over the character you are going to play.

That core difference in chargen, between me and you, Lifepath vs. Point-Buy is also the reason you like Slasher Flick and I'd maybe play it the way I'd play any party game.  When it comes to roleplaying, I do it from one point of view if possible, you possibly do it from two, which I actually think is probably the dominant paradigm currently.  I try to think as the character in the setting, you think both as the character in the setting and about the character as a character in the game.  Not to the point that you want or need mechanics to operate in that headspace, because you play a game without them and don't like games that operate heavily in that headspace, like Fate.

Still, that's enough of a difference to cause us to look at certain things differently, and it can be fundamental enough to lead to misunderstandings when we're not coming from the same place. Again, not a value judgement, just a difference.

I got snappy in my reply, after all the "OSR Taliban, Talmud, Holy Writ" horseshit lately, you triggered me with this characterization of the funnel that's not supported by the game text itself.   It seemed like yet another incorrect "common OSR wisdom" thing coming out of left field.  My bad.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971420Hey to Ream, that's a badge of honor.

You're just, like, too entrenched in your dominant paradigm, man, you don't understand the....*cough* what were we talking about?

Quote from: daniel_ream;971428You're just, like, too entrenched in your dominant paradigm, man, you don't understand the....*cough* what were we talking about?

Clyde Caldwell portraits.

Quote from: daniel_ream;971428You're just, like, too entrenched in your dominant paradigm, man, you don't understand the....*cough* what were we talking about?

Just talkin' bout old school.

We can dig it....

Quote from: daniel_ream;971078Except nothing's actually at stake.  Those 0-level NPC's aren't real, and nothing that happens to them really matters.  They're indistinguishable, so it doesn't even matter which of them survives to the end to be promoted to 1st level.  

That might be true in games that are just funnels.  

In my experience running a long-term campaign, people create personas for their 0-levels really quick.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;971260Don't people feel like they're just spectators when they are level 0 or 1 and someone else is 5?

Not in my experience. But they do feel like newbs.

I think 0-level DCC characters are really not that different from beginning characters in pre 3E editions of D&D (and similar games), or brand new, untrained characters in original Runequest (e.g., Rurik the Restless in his first encounter), etc. It has become common to think any character worth writing up should be exceptional and likely to survive and succeed at his or her first adventures, but there are dozens of older games where this is not the case.

Quote from: RPGPundit;971858Not in my experience. But they do feel like newbs.

Maybe it's more of a D&D thing then.

It seem common to look at having mixed level parties as some sort of offense.

Quote from: Simlasa;971385And if you can't enjoy playing a lvl zero... I'm going to wonder how much fun you'll bring to any other PC you play, if all that matters is the numbers and mechanical competency.

Again, you're missing my point.  The stakes are no higher or lower when playing a gang of 0-level dung farmers or a 3rd-level Dark Sun PC.  It's all just make-believe.  The  only thing a player truly has invested that can't be mulliganed is the time spent playing, which is the same either way.  None of this is real, it's just make-believe and to claim that "the stakes are higher" with a 0-level funnel is approaching "BLACK LEAF!! NOOOOO" levels of confusing the game with reality.

To my understanding in the the funnel you run more than one PC at a time?

Quote from: Nexus;971980To my understanding in the the funnel you run more than one PC at a time?

You can, and usually do, but it is not required. The expectation is that something like half of the PC's will end up dead, so running more than one gives you a reasonable chance of having at least one survive, and that one becomes your main character. But it is not that important that you do it specifically this way. Actually, this is another way in which DCC is not very different from my experience of low-level D&D play. My groups have always had multiple PC's per player.

Quote from: Larsdangly;971907I think 0-level DCC characters are really not that different from beginning characters in pre 3E editions of D&D (and similar games), or brand new, untrained characters in original Runequest (e.g., Rurik the Restless in his first encounter), etc. It has become common to think any character worth writing up should be exceptional and likely to survive and succeed at his or her first adventures, but there are dozens of older games where this is not the case.

This is something that seems to have changed over my decades of RPG gaming. In the early days we expected our inexperienced characters to die like flies and often rolled up several at a time just so as to have replacements ready.  These days there seems to be a very strong "no kill" bias in RPGs. Some games go so far as to take character death off the table unless the player consents to having their character die.

We expected the same risk of death for involved character creation systems like FGU as we did for Basic D&D.

Quote from: Larsdangly;971989You can, and usually do, but it is not required. The expectation is that something like half of the PC's will end up dead, so running more than one gives you a reasonable chance of having at least one survive, and that one becomes your main character. But it is not that important that you do it specifically this way. Actually, this is another way in which DCC is not very different from my experience of low-level D&D play. My groups have always had multiple PC's per player.

Generally, my groups and I personally, never run more than one PC at the same time though sometimes some might have more than one character in the same setting. Its one of the aspects of Slasher Flick that I didn't enjoy though I understood the point of it.

Quote from: daniel_ream;971977Again, you're missing my point.  The stakes are no higher or lower when playing a gang of 0-level dung farmers or a 3rd-level Dark Sun PC.  It's all just make-believe.

Sure, OK, whatever... was that really a point that needed making?
I was only arguing against the notion, if not yours then someone elses, that level zeroes are somehow a lesser form of play.